Making everyone happy is impossible. Pissing them off is a piece of cake. I like cake.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Did someone say 'ignorant witch-hunt'?

[Note: this post is absolutely and unequivocally not by DK]

Unity at Liberal Conspiracy (yes, evil lefties, hang them all) has done some actual research, rather than just demented ranting, into the Baby P case. The most important fact his detailed evidence based on the trial and on other published sources brings out, and which has been almost completely ignored by the latest media circus, is that until violent, abusive paedophile Jason Owen moved secretly into the family home two weeks before Baby P's death [*], the child was neglected but not subjected to serious physical abuse. The outcome of the social workers' many visits before Owen moved in was to find:

... few, if any, of the classic signs that serious abuse may have been taking place within the family home. The mother appears to have willingly cooperated with both the social workers and health workers throughout and although the SCR notes two incidents where the child was presented for medical treatment with injuries that raised suspicions about the possibility of abuse and/or neglect, both of which were investigated by the police but gave rise to an inconclusive outcome, there seems to have been little or nothing until the final two weeks of Baby P’s life which would indicate that what social workers were dealing with was anything other than a run of the mill case of a newly single parent struggling to cope on her own with the youngest of her four children.

His conclusions are:

Baby P was subjected to low level abuse and neglect by his mother and stepfather of a kind that was sufficent to raise suspicions amongst police and social workers but not to provide the evidence and legal grounds necessary for the council to obtain a care order, as its legal advisors indicated on 25th July 2007, and…

There was a sudden, unexpected and ultimately fatal escalation in the degree of abuse visited on the child by one of more of the adults living in his household, the presence of two of whom (the mother’s boyfriend and his brother, the supposed lodger) was not known to the authorities until after the child’s death.

Without social workers being aware of the presence of these two individuals in the household, there was no way that the death of Baby P could have been prevented, given that two police investigations into what appeared to be physicial abuse of the child failed to turn up sufficient evidence either for a prosecution or for care proceedings.

In other words, if you think that the social workers in this case did anything seriously wrong [**], then you're pretty much committed to:

dealing with point A, and sticking all kids who're neglected or appear ever to have been physically abused into care homes—even when no charges are brought. If you support this, then you're a cunt, and you thoroughly deserve your kid taken away when he falls down the stairs twice in a month.

or

dealing with point B, and carrying out detailed surveillance on all families with kids who're neglected or appear ever to have been physically abused to see if someone even worse moves in. If you support this, then you're a cunt, and you're insane, and you thoroughly deserve a council camera crew outside your house watching your every step forever after your kid falls down the stairs twice in a month.

Or perhaps we could accept that there are some very, very evil bastards out there, and some people who act relatively normally (for 'crap but not evil' values of normally, in this case) most of the time but can become very, very evil bastards when encouraged to do so by people in the first group. And based on that, we might want to add that basing government systems on the assumption that everyone is either an evil bastard or about to fall under the influence of evil bastards would be not just a bad idea, but the shittiest idea ever, and one which would make despicable authoritarian bastards Very Very Happy.

We might instead say that if we impose systems under which children are only forcibly separated from their parents under the very worst of circumstances, and under which parents are not always and unequivocally treated as evil abusers if they fail to live up to ideal standards of parenting, then sometimes this will mean that children will suffer horribly and die—but that it will avoid a far larger number of children suffering horribly by being taken into council care without good cause.

And fuck, if we're libertarians rather than just blathering cunts, we might say that this is the right thing to fucking do.

[*] Note that the only evidence incriminating Baby P's stepfather as a controlling psychopath, rather than "simple, shy and easily dominated" as the trial found, is the News of the World's interview with Owen's now-16-year-old girlfriend. Did someone say 'reliable and unbiased sources'?

[**] Perhaps the paediatrician is a different story; I'm not an expert on how long a baby with a broken back takes to die or on how likely it is to be fatal when treated versus when not treated, nor on how easy it is to identify.

UPDATE BY DK: I would just like to reiterate that Unity's article is very much worth reading, as it does shed very significant light upon the case. I still maintain that the main torturer (you will notice that I have generally been quite reticent as to which one of these people that is) will end up in Broadmoor rather than Belmarsh though...

47 comments:

Oli
said...

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown certainly fits under the 'cunt' and 'insane' categories pretty perfectly then- she agreed 'completely' with the idea that 'it's better to remove 100 children in error than leave one to be tortured to death'. Absurd woman...

"I'm not an expert on how long a baby with a broken back takes to die or on how likely it is to be fatal when treated versus when not treated, nor on how easy it is to identify."

It rather depends on the degree to which the back was broken. A broken neck tends to result in death only because a) the spinal cord is quite thin there, b) the neck is very flexible, c) this cuts off the nerve signals keeping the heart and lungs going.

A broken back is unlikely to result in death and, with the thicker cord, may have caused only temporary or partial paralysis of the area below the break.

Further, in small children, the cord has not yet been fully flooded with the enzymes that prevent regrowth.*

DK

* Once the central nervous system (CNS) has fully grown, the whole system is flooded with enzymes and other chemical inhibitors that prevent any growth. This is why cancer of the CNS is almost unknown (and why broken backs result in life-long paralysis, etc.).

The peripheral nervous system is not fully formed until several years into a child's life (which is why toddlers tend to be clumsy), and also has a reasonable regrowth mechanism.

The Unity piece is of note given the timeline after Jason Barker moves into the house and the tragedy culminates quickly thereafter. However, the Unity piece mentions just a two "minor" incidents prior to the arrival of Barker. Most timelines are similar to this in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/11/baby-p-death

I think any reading of the timeline pre-Barker shows something terribly amiss in this case. The incidents mentioned are not "minor" by any normal guidelines of children that age. Common sense plays a role as well, think of your own experiences. How many children of that age do you come upon with weeping head wounds, facial bruising, etc? Now ask yourself, how often do you encounter the same child who shows these types of signs over and over? A sensible answer would be rarely if ever.

The Unity piece makes a great deal about this 15-year old from the Mirror being the key/only source of ill things regarding Stephen Barker. As this 15-year old was at the scene of the crime it is wise to be sceptical on these charges without backing evidence. However, the Unity article then goes on to make a great deal of Stephen Barker being "shy and easily dominated", this description based upon the utterings of one witness at the trial. Who was this one witness? What is the context of statement? The point being, do not rely on what one witness says (whether it be the 15-year old or the "shy" witness) without backing evidence.

The casualness with which the Unity piece deals with the "shortish" 20 minutes of having child that age sit with their head between their legs is a "clue" that the author is air-brushing. Any parent (and non-parents I would suppose) would be repulsed to hear this type of finger-snapping Pavlovesque treatment is decidely not the same as "sitting in the corner" in terms of punishment for a child this age/any age.

Other items as well but I think you get the gist. When looking at the totality of what is known this case appears to be that of total failure. The overwhelming portion rests with the human debris that carried out these acts on the child, but what does one expect from garbage like these 3? However, those people/bodies which are officially charged to detect and prevent this type of abuse failed utterly as well. From these in officialdom it is expected they do their jobs (perfect, never; competently, always) for which they are being paid and supposedly care. No reading of the facts in this case show that officialdom as a whole (across many different agencies) carried out their duties satisfactorily.

You raise an interesting point in the libertarian outlook as when to allow state intervention in the removal process. As a libertarian as well I say my libertine-ness ends with the physical harm of someone else. When it comes to children I have a very very low threshold for neglect and abuse. Is the remedy removal? Different situations call for different measures. If one "parent" is proven responsible for the neglect/abuse it is they who should be removed. If both "parents" are proven responsible then both should be removed as well as the child.

This would all be more convincing if the source material was the court transcript rather than the social services' own report. The fact that social services were unaware of any abuse until the last minute (and not even then, really) does not prove that none occurred. In fact, the fact that they didn't notice any abuse is the whole point.

But even if we only listen to their version of events, the argument you give doesn't stand up.

The theory that nothing happened until the lodger arrived is not completely implausible but I don't see anything in the report that backs it up.

What is clear, however, is that social services were fucking hopeless even in the last week when, I think we can all agree, the most horrific abuse was taking place.

As the report states:

It should be noted that during the last month of his life, Ms A presented her son to health professionals eight times, and in his last week, he was seen by a social worker and a paediatrician. None of those professionalsidentified major concerns about child A’s health and well being.

AndMost critically child A was seen on 01.08.07 [the day before he died] by a community paediatricianfor the purpose of the long awaited developmental assessment. Expert medical opinion commissioned during the course of this serious case review concluded that a diagnosis of abuse should have been made at that point.

Whether the lodger was more of a psycho than his brother is hardly the point (though I can see no evidence for this). It is very hard to believe that serious abuse was not going on for many months prior to this poor child's death and, I repeat, I see nothing in the executive summary to suggest otherwise. (On the contrary, the child was admitted to hospital with suspicious injuries on several occasions.)

Either way, I can't see how anyone can claim that the social services were not criminally negligent. They say themselves that abuse should have been identified by the last doctor's visit at the very latest. As such, it is bollocks to say that "Without social workers being aware of the presence of these two individuals in the household, there was no way that the death of Baby P could have been prevented".

1. I'm afraid that even the Guardian's timeline still shows only a general pattern of low level abuse or neglect consistent with the assumption made by social services that what they were dealing with was an incompetent parent with a tendency to lash out and get a bit too heavy handed with the child.

Nothing in it contradicts the view that the level and severity of the abuse visited on the child escalated considerably during the final three weeks of his life.

2. If you want to find fault with the various professionals who saw him during the months leading up to his death then the piece of evidence that wasn't given enough attention was the evident behavioural problems the child exhibited. That, coupled with the bruising and evidence of neglect should have set the alarm bells off, but what's not clear is whether any failure to recognise its significance should be laid at the door of the social workers or at the healthcare professional who saw the child more than twice as often as who appear to have failed to make the connection.

3. As for the question of whose evidence to trust in this case, the testimony of the 15 year old girl has to be considered questionable given the circumstances of the case, and the jury seem to have seen it the same way hence the failure to bring in a murder or manslaughter verdict.

As for the witness who described the primary perp as simple, shy and easily dominated, the circumstances of the case demand that that should be followed up and examined even if only to run it out as an explanation as to why the events unfolded as they did.

The decision not just to afford Jason Barker a false ID but to attempt to conceal the fact that he's the principle's brother is a staggering one because just about any forensic psychologist looking at this case would zero in on the apparent escalation in abuse in the final few weeks and look for a triggering event that might explain such an explanation. Had Barker been merely a lodger it would have been a reach to see any significance in his appearance on the scene but the sibling relationship, which the court sought to conceal, throws up a whole new set of question that need to be looked at.

I'm not suggesting that my interpretation is any better or worse than the media's accounts of the child death only that it fits the available evidence sufficient well to provide a plausible alternative account of circumstances leading to child's death and, consequently, raises a number of questions and lines of further inquiry that need to be explored in the course of full inquiry into this case and the role of the authorities in it

Or is there something wrong in pointing out that there is still much here for which definitive answers are, as yet, elusive and that, as such, we need to proceed on the basis of evidence and not rumour, speculation and the questionable assumptions of the tabloids.

Either way, I can't see how anyone can claim that the social services were not criminally negligent. They say themselves that abuse should have been identified by the last doctor's visit at the very latest. As such, it is bollocks to say that "Without social workers being aware of the presence of these two individuals in the household, there was no way that the death of Baby P could have been prevented".

Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly how social services can be criminally negligent when the paediatrician who failed to examine the child in the course of a development assessment (and not a full medical examination) worked for the NHS.

If we follow your logic then next time my mate's Vauxhall breaks down he should try suing Ford for the cost of the repairs.

FFS, try paying attention here - the child was seen 18 times by social workers and 37 times by various health workers, so how come there's automatic assumption that it was the social workers who screwed up?

Unity: I would be only too glad to be able to believe that your interpretation of events was the correct one. Who in their right mind would want the horrifying account we have been given to be true?

But you accept too easily the assumption that a 'low level' of abuse should be deemed acceptable, that the mother was merely going through a slightly difficult patch and that the assessment of a child on the at risk register should not include, as a matter of routine, full medical examinations.

Why is any level of physical abuse acceptable where a small child, unable to speak out or seek help, is concerned? The child protection officials did not even pretend to believe that his injuries were caused by accident. How can 'an incompetent parent with a tendency to lash out and get a bit too heavy-handed' - with her baby - be regarded as safe to be trusted with him?

Is it suggested that a previously responsible and caring mother suddenly took leave of her senses and allowed not just one but two deranged and brutal men to share her home and then simply failed to notice what one or other of them was doing to her youngest child? Plainly she was already known to be far from capable of taking responsibiity for his care; in which case, greater efforts should have been made to take him to a place of safety.

And how can the wellbeing of a child already regarded as being at risk be assessed properly without a careful medical examination at least once a month?

The account you quote places the most favourable interpretation possible on the actions of the officials involved. If it stands up to independent and public scrutiny I for one shall be relieved that at least their best efforts were made, even if in the end they were doomed to failure. But at present I agree with Georges, and I think it reads like a whitewash.

Yet another bout of the " educated " and nuanced libertards sneering at the hanging and flogging plebs.

The whole social work organisation is rotten with political correctness.

Take two examples - a friend of mine, my weight training partner, was a social worker. He was forced out of his job due to his hobby being deemed 'inappropriate' by the chief lesbian. He didn't swan around in a Golds Gym muscle vest striking poses, he definitely didn't take steroids. He just liked going to the gym.

Second example - another social worker, this time a friend of my in-laws. Black, female ( two aces in the diversity poker hand ) but unfortunately for her, a Christian. Attended one of those black gospel churches where you get James Brown style singing, which could almost make religion seem like fun. 'Inappropriate' again, sidelined and forced out.

How can you look after children effectively when you are spending a significant amount of your time and energy persecuting your own staff for lifting weights or believing in god ?

If you asked those stupid wankers what time it was they would tell you that the whole concept of temporal measurement is a dead white male capitalist con trick, which disempowers womyn and minorities. None of their fuckups suprise me at all.

There was less empire building, back stabbing and naked pursuit of power in Himmlers Allgemeine-SS

The mother was arrested not once, but twice, for alleged cruelty. The charges were not taken any further, but without believing the police are infallible, aren't the arrests in themselves a bit of a clue?

In the case of the 13yr old girl who refused a heart transplant, the 'State', via the NHS, was able to move unbelievably quickly in an attempt to remove her from her loving parents and enforce a life-threatening operation upon her. Only last-minute intervention was able to prevent this - yet a toddler visibly at risk, in a dodgy environment, seem to have rung few alarm bells.

I'm a mother, a grandmother, and a one-time foster parent - common sense tells you that abuse will not always be apparent, and that a certain amount of neglect does not amount to full-blown abuse. However, in this case, as with Climbie and others, ALL the professionals involved failed spectacularly, and should hang their heads in utter shame.

This whole sorry business reminds me a story from the 80s that you may remember about the late great John Aspinall. There was a big furore when he photographed one of his baby grandchildren in the arms of one of his female gorillas and he commented that the tot was far safer than it would be with a social worker.

We will have to disagree on the definition of "low level abuse and neglect". Given the harm done may be interpreted differently by different individuals, this pattern may/should have raised the bar even higher, in terms of watchfulness, for social services in dealing with this particular "parent".

You rightfully point out the head-butting as an alarm bell. I agree, another red-flag that something right was not going on. It would be interesting to learn whether the child exhibited this behaviour often or rarely (eg. only when the social worker was around). Given the "training" meted out elsewhere in the sordid story the headbutting could have been a "taught" behaviour summoned up on cue to help the "parent" have something to point to and say, "See what he does". Speculation, but not out of the realm of possibility. Regardless, another alarm bell as you say.

As I noted originally, both the 15-year old and the "shy" witness should be taken in context and backed by facts. The original Unity article leaves one with the impression that the "shy" witness should be listened to more and may be the one telling the truth. Regardless, when it comes to human refuse like we are dealing with in this caase, trust nobody, get facts. As it relates to the fact scale, the only known witness whose story is corraborated in any form or fashion is the 15-year old. Specific details corroborated, no. General description of events, yes. Still, more information required in any case.

The Jason Barker theory may hold water and this sorry sack may indeed that pushed things over the edge. I would posit that the child was already at the edge pushed by the abuse at the hands of someone/someones in the house. No idea on this one but your thoughts are plausible in that respect.

As it relates to the response of Haringey governmental officials both before and after it is quite clear to see what is happening. Anyone who has spent time in government can see in the reaction of the government that they know things were handled terribly wrong in this case, as in before the child was murdered. These bungled situations happen all the time in governmental work, unfortunately this one involved a child being tortured and murdered as opposed to a trivial outcome.

Do note, disagreeing with yourself and/or the article in no way means I think you are condoning the actions of either the 3 shreds of human debris who murdered the tot or the official reaction of the governmental bodies which failed to stopped him from being murdered.

While researching my own post on this subject today, I found that three months before Baby P died he was admitted to hospital with brain swelling caused by non-accidental injuries. Social services were aware of this and decided to do bugger all, and I don't think they notified the police either because they are under no statutory obligation to do so.

I would say the previous anonymous post about covers it. I've been avoiding commenting on this because those shouting about this now will later be shouting when social services have been too quick to snatch children away from parents. These 'services' are just so riddled with political correctness and delivered with ideology in mind rather than reality that of course they fuck up. I'd call what they're focused on 'social engineering', but it's now more like spraying in Easystart to try and keep a badly-designed engine running. But only when there's not something more important to do, like hounding out someone who doesn't buy the ideology, or who might reveal just how much of mess it all is.

Just an observation. I have seen and examined many children suffering from brain injury caused mostly by oxygen depravation at birth which was medical negligence. Not deliberate just a cock up, ruining the child's life and that of their parents. These children are loved. It was obvious. The parents are mostly utterly knackered caring for these children, often with no help which is why I was visiting in the first place. I was absolutely incandescent when I read about this poor boy and what the evil bastards deliberately inflicted on him. It's a real pity these creatures will be segregated from the more normal lags. And 14 years is pathetic. Guantanamo bay must be like Butlins by comparison to what these bastards got up to. I tell you, I would queue up to pull the lever myself in this case if there was such an opportunity.

I'm struck by Unity's idea that "low level abuse and neglect" is acceptable and that removing a child suffering from such "abuse and neglect" is somehow giving carte blanche to the state to drag away hundreds of children from their innocent parents on mere suspicion.

Baby P was abused and neglected. This is fact. The social services were aware of this long before it reached the point of being fatal. The social services, knowing the child was being abused and neglected, chose not to intervene.

At best, Unity is creating a false dichotomy whereby any and all intervention in cases of non-fatal abuse necessarily involves stealing children away from innocent (middle class) parents.

Now this is the story all about howMy spine got snapped, turned upside downAnd I'd like to take a minute just listen to meI'll tell you how I became a corpse known as Baby P

In North London born and raisedIn the hospital is where I spent most of my daysBruised and beaten within an inch of my lifeHad my fingertips sliced off with a Stanley knifeBecause a couple of guys liked to choke me till I'm bluePull out my fingernails, set the dog on me tooThe council investigated and my got angryShe said "We'll break your back and you'll die in Haringey."

Over her boyfriend's knee my spine went crackThe I lay there paralysed with a broken backIf anything I could say that this shit was gayI was dying in a filthy cot for two days

Then I got punched in the face about once or twiceI swallowed a tooth and thought "Yo, this ain't nice!"That's the end of my story, it was the end for meThat's how I became the corpse known as Baby P.

I mentioned middle class, you fucking dolt, because there's been an implication floating around for some time - and it's been explicitly stated on more than one blog - that social services specifically target middle class parents while ignoring the faults of lower socio-economic strata.

Unity's bit plays right into this belief. His argument, whether it is his intention or otherwise, is that we must turn a blind eye to "low-level abuse and neglect" for fear that nice middle class families will have their kids stolen away.

The second most disappointing thing in this whole affair is the government's response via the mouthpiece of Ed "Cunt" Balls, whose solution is to slip in yet another layer of useless sacks of shit (no doubt check the Graun's job pages if you'd like to play) known as Children's Trust Boards (CTB). Saints preserve us, how fucking depressing. The root of the problem, as has been commented, is institutionalised PC. Yes, Political Correctness Gone Mad. Yes, and Yes Again. There is required a sustained campaign against all these cunts along the lines of Political Correctness is Literally Killing our Children. I know it's Daily Mail-y but so the fuck what.

"there's been an implication floating around for some time - and it's been explicitly stated on more than one blog - that social services specifically target middle class parents while ignoring the faults of lower socio-economic strata."

I see. I didn't realise anyone here was mad enough to fall for something quite so transparently rubbish, but I suppose they might be.

I don't believe I've said that low level abuse and neglect is in any sense acceptable, what I've pointed out is that its depressingly commonplace to the point of being mundane but that its a problem that can often be managed out by supporting the failing parent without the need to take a child into care.

And the point of making that observation is that, without the benefit of hindsight, they was little in this sad and squalid case to make it stand out from any other the department was dealing with at the time - its only when you can see the full picture that you can see where things could have been done differently.

There's a key concept in military strategy called the 'fog of war' which many people would do well to understand when it comes to cases like this. What seems obvious with hindsight may not have been at all apparent when the situation is unfolding all around you and you're right in the thick of it.

Despite my loathing of social workers, I'm inclined to agree with Unity and PDF on the issue of Baby P's first year or 15 months.

One of the primary duties of mothers of young children is to stop the little buggers throwing themselves downstairs or out of the window, colliding with angular pieces of masonry in the house or garden, shutting their fingers in drawers, playing with kitchen knives, and so on (or, indeed, to prevent their siblings from pushing them down the stairs ...) If both parents are in residence, are responsible and sober, and know how to fix up stairgates, fire guards, and other safety devices, then the job isn't impossible -- though the occasional trip to A&E is to be expected.

If, on the other hand, the father walks out, the mother is depressed, and clueless enough to leave a toddler alone in a room with, say, a pair of pliers or an angry bull terrier, then more accidents will happen. It doesn't require systematic torture for a child to be a regular visitor to A&E.

The fact that situations like you describe are commonplace excuses nothing. It merely demonstrates how utterly bankrupt this country's social policies (and social services!) are. We have gone up a catastrophic cul de sac. Rather than focus on the causes of the broken society (and whilst not being a Conservative I believe Cameroon's phrase is valid) we live in - our disastrous education system, our benefit culture etc. - the government instead seeks to treat the symptoms - ever more authoritarianism, control, surveillance etc. Does anyone seriously think these 3 sick scumbags would have behaved like this if they had been given a decent education (or decent mental health care, if more appropriate) and had not been encouraged by the benefits system to breed like rabbits? But unfortunately these are things that appear impossible to change, trapped as our structures are in political correctness and ideology. Thatcher's battle with the NUM would be but a trifle to the conflict that would be needed to break that down. What a depressing shit hole the UK is.

Unity "There's a key concept in military strategy called the 'fog of war' which many people would do well to understand when it comes to cases like this. What seems obvious with hindsight may not have been at all apparent when the situation is unfolding all around you and you're right in the thick of it."

Aye the good old fog of war. However, that fog does not always lie thick over the valleys. Sometimes as the situation is unfolding there are people saying "Are you sure that's a good idea Sir?" or "I really think you should be taking option b rather than a." Sometimes there isn't a fog of war at all, there is just marching the Pals battalions out of the trenches into the machine gun fire because that's what you learned at Royal Military Academy."

Make a daft enough decision and they might even convene a court martial.

What a crock of shite. At the end of the day, debating on all of this and not doing anything makes us all a sack of cunts. Instead of just making opinion, lets all try and make our feelings known and for once in our cunting lives, not let this die a death and forget as we all seem to do onec to often. If we all organise something and all get off our fat back sides, go to London and fucking ram our upset down there throats, make them see and the evil cunts that it will not be tolerated. Lets make the cunts who know when and where this all happens get some so that they dont just watch it happen. I am sick of just letting things like this happen, lets not let this just be swept under a rug, lets all use our freedom of speech do something about it, people fought in wars to give us this freedom, lets fuck these cunts where it hurts. Stop thinking we know better and have all the answers in just words. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT FOR FUCKS SAKE.....

Why do we all just read these tabloids and only word our frustrations. How wonderful are Human Beings right now. I am ashamed in us all. Dont just be anonymous. I agree, let us all do something about this.

Ok, so who will take the lead in organising something? The Belgians did this after their paedo scandal - a march on London to show cunts like Ed Balls that their mealy mouth platitudes to set up yet another quango to look into it all but do fuck all is just no longer fucking good enough. I am not a member of facebook but maybe someone should suggest it on the baby p group on face book? devil, you know all about viral marketing, cant you help? maybe the libertarian party should grab this opportunity???

even in death, he wasnt given even the SLIGHTEST bit of respect...more here

now MAYBE, his immediate family could not afford it. if that was the case, why didnt haringey council at least show some humanity? but no - they didnt. much better to brush it under the carpet - and if no gravestone, all the better.

"Does anyone seriously think these 3 sick scumbags would have behaved like this if they had been given a decent education (or decent mental health care, if more appropriate) and had not been encouraged by the benefits system to breed like rabbits?"

Quite possibly. Or at least, whoever actually tortured the baby to death might well have engaged in brutal torture of whoever they could find to torture to death, no matter how good they were at Latin vocab.

At the end of the day, debating on all of this and not doing anything makes us all a sack of cunts.

Not really. If there were a reason to march on London / have a mass lynching / send sinister hate-mail to councillors and social workers, then you might have a point.

Since there isn't, you don't: debating on all of this and not doing anything at least means that the demented fuckwits who believe that incredibly rare events (be they horrible murders, tsunamis, or whatever) are worthy of anything other than tutting and ignoring won't do any active harm...

I have a problem with the entire Unity analysis - (well firstly it's mainly based on the Serious Case Review (also known as the whitewash).

Unity I note has shifted to claiming three weeks rather than two in replies here.

But, where I have my doubts are - the slicing off of a tip of the finger and the nails. It takes many weeks for the tip of a finger to heal and months for nails to regrow. I am unconvinced by Unity's timeline and also by the explanations for the finger clicking behaviour which is (contrary to assertion) not at all like the naughty step.

I also dont like the attempt to deflect attention away from the social workers to the NHS. The NHS primary role is care. They appear to have reported questionable injuries. The social workers job is child protection. That is their job. I also wasnt impressed by the weaselly way that the social workers seem to claim the multi-agency group agrees to something - so by implication both the police and the NHS are somehow equally to blame. The reality is that the social workers hold most of the cards, if they dont agree, the other agencies are stuffed unless the police can find enough evidence to arrest people. I also dislike the attempt to blame the cops for not finding enough evidence of abuse - a victim who cannot speak for himself, reasonable doubt. It's the social workers job to look beyond what the police can prove, not to hide behind the higher standard required for criminal conviction.

Some of Unity's criticism of the press are valid - scavenging is a fairly normal toddler activity, the swinging might have been for play. But, the comments go too far without enough evidence and they are far too generous to the social workers. A 5/10 effort.

Did the social workers fuck up in this case? You know what? I don't care. Unity is right, there's no real story here beyond how the media has managed to turn an all too common occurence into a feeding frenzy of villification. And this fucking control-freak government must be rubbing their hands with glee, knowing that the legislation that they've already written but kept hidden can now be unleashed on a waiting world. Seriously, because we're all focussed on who should be blamed, we will end up having what we least want, an increasing number of children wrongly removed from their parents care in an effort to prevent that one death.

FFS - this has got fuck all to do with social workers fucking up and everything to do with how far we're prepared to go to stick our great big fucking beaks into people's lives. It seems everyone has suddenly become an expert in child protection, jumping on the bandwagon of second-guesses and self-righteousness when we should be watching our elected dictatorship like a fucking hawk. I don't care which professional may or may not be culpable in the death of this poor child, but I do fucking care that it's being hijacked by politicians who will use this for their own vile ends.